NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/misc/writing/3473

Text File | 1992-11-10 | 4.1 KB | 87 lines

Newsgroups: misc.writing
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!decwrl!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!saslpo
From: [e-mail] (Len Olszewski)
Subject: Re: A gender neutral pronoun, was Fundamentalist Nightmare
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:20:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stevens.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 73


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jonathan Jacobs) writes:
|>
|> Here's a little somthing that almost always manages to piss _everyone_ off:
|> Instead of worrying about gender neutrality, why not just randomly pick a
|> gender for the space of the article/whatever you are writing and be done
|> with it?
|>

No. That makes too much sense. It would be too conveeeenient. 8-)

|>    An awful lot of people seem to find that really offensive for some
|> reason...  Go figure.  Anyway, until such time as the kratos of taste
|> decide that there will be a gender-neutral pronoun for the American (a
|> distant relative of English) language you should just get your readers used
|> to not being able to prejudge anything simply by the gender pronouns you
|> use.  For example, The first edition of Oh! Pascal chose to use the "female"
|> pronouns "she" and "her" when they referred to their mythical/hypothetical
|> programmer throughout their book.  I certainly liked this much better than
|> the oh-so-wimpy "they/their" that some use for dealing with the singular
|> impersonal pronoun.  (Tho' many, many programmers are gender neutral.  But
|> that's a different topic.)
|>

Wimpiness, of course, is in the eye of the gender-neutral beholder.
There are other ways to deal with this issue besides watering down the
pronoun you pick. By choosing the person you use, in particular by
choosing the second person, you can get a sexless pronoun by default.

Choose the mood you use properly. Notice that the imperative mood gives
you the second person by default. Observe the gender neutrality which
results.

Nothing prevents the intrepid writer from using genderless nouns rather
that androgynous pronouns. The plucky wordsmith can substitute
gender-free descriptive nouns just about anywhere. This can inject some
needed color into the dauntless author's prose. Or not.

Let's not rule out wimpiness, though. If a writer tries, s/he can be
inventively wimpy. S/he can use slashes that he or she can augment with
compound subjects connected with conjunctions. This can make his or her
prose incredibly annoying, but her (or his) audience may not mind
because they don't read things inside of parentheses.

Finally, the execrable solution of overusing the passive voice can be
applied. This way, avoiding mentioning a subject altogether can be
achieved. Most will agree that this is the way some of the worst writing
is performed.

|>    Or you should just invent your own neutral pronoun and be proud of your
|> creativity.  You could be the next James Joyce (and a hell of a writer was
|> she.)
|>

Inventing a neutral pronoun of my own, eh?  Something like "..if the
programmer specifies the wrong argument, the SLICE() function
permanently alters shizz access privileges.."?  Yeah..that's got a nice
ring to it..

|> [[[Post your favorite invented words here.  Pronouns especially, but feel
|>    free to create new and different categories, too.]]]
|>
|> jon
|>

<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
|Len Olszewski, Technical Writer| "Gee, Mr. Peabody..."               |
|[e-mail]             |  -Sherman                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->